Thurisaz

☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

    10,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Thurisaz last won the day on October 25 2016

Thurisaz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,732 Wow

About Thurisaz

  • Rank
    Warrior of Thor
  • Birthday 05/09/1970

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    germanicheathen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Germany
  • Interests
    GURPS, The 'Thief' series, EVE Online, and more.
  • More About Me
    Good SciFi (Babylon 5... Perry Rhodan, in content if not in style, the new Galactica), good horror (Aliens, H. P. Lovecraft novels). Proudly on the far left of the political spectrum by most scales.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    The Asgard gang (Nordic/Germanic heathenry)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thurisaz

    Putin. Yeah that one.

    I see you still ignore most of what I wrote.
  2. Same with the Breivik asshole back then no? I happened to be able to watch the reporting pretty much since his kid-killing spree became known. "Fun" how they were all... "...another islamist terror attack! This latest in the chain of muslim crimes against..." *pssst - looks like he's a white Norwegian, devout christia...* "...this lone madman..."
  3. So. I’ve been called a „Putin apologist“ lately, by certain people in here. You know who you are, I will not mention any names. Let’s get some things clear here about my views on Putin and „the West“. Just as a short PSA, so that you at least can bash me for what I really think mmmmkay? „Putin is an autocrat / dictator / (insert your preferred label here)!!!“ Yes he certainly isn’t a leader who supports democracy and human rights to their fullest. Not at all. I have not denied that, and I do not deny that now either. However… is that any different in „the West“? Oh yes, the repression system isn’t as drastic and in-your-face here – generally – as it is in Russia. But look your own mirror image in the eye and try to honestly tell yourself that it’s any different in our respective countries, if you really have plans that would change the system. We’re not in danger of falling victim to a Strange Accident™ normally, but when was the last time you have seen anyone promoting real change not getting fought tooth and nail by the ruling system, across all official party divides, including all the major media? Sure, normally such parties/candidates are just not talked about by the journaille, or if they are, then they are badmouthed as much as possible. But is that any different in outcome? We’re allowed to disagree on minor issues, but never on the core issues, namely the rule of the 1 %. Also, totalitarian or not, he is an officially elected leader. If we’re not happy with that, that’s our right. But if we want to change that, does anyone think that saber-rattling will do the job? Ever checked how much public support Putin enjoys from the Russian people? You let the tanks and bombers roll into position, you only reinforce the impression that the average Russian has of The West. „Putin annexed Crimea!“ Did he? Annexion, last I checked, was defined as violent takeover of a region that does not agree to you marching in. Crimea had declared itself independent of Ukraine and invited Russia. We can certainly argue whether that declaration of independence was or was not engineered by Russia, but that’s a different question. Calling the Crimea thing an annexion is, flatly, a lie. Oh right, why would anyone want to leave Ukraine after what happened a few years ago? Well even western media with their obvious bias didn’t stay silent about the new regime having recruited far-right groups to support itself very fast. When was the last time you agreed with anyone calling bona fide nazis a group of good people? This here has become infamous over here, a screenshot from our state-owned "quality" TV. It shows one member of what the TV station called "Ukrainian freedom fighters against the Russian threat". You may notice a certain thing in that image. When called on it, the TV station said "sorry our fault"... then promptly did it again. Several times. Besides, that the West started meddling in Ukraine at all leads to the following point. „Putin is a dangerous aggressor!!!“ Is he? How many countries did Russia conquer and/or wreck since Putin got into office? Let’s look at the West during the same time mmmkay? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria… these are just the ones that occur to me spontaneously. Yeah some of you will now mention Russia’s involvement in Syria. Folks, Assad officially invited Russian forces to his country. According to international law that makes the Russian forces the only foreign military that’s allowed to be there. We can certainly argue whether or not Assad is a good leader or not, but see above, he also is an officially elected leader. If we want to work to change that, fine, but we’ll have to do it in accordance with international law. Hint: Sponsoring rebel groups or bombing anyone or anything in that country is not in accordance with the law. Two wrongs do not make a right. For most of the world, yes there is a global superpower throwing its weight around and acting like it’s allowed to do anything according to „might makes right“. I point you again to the list of aggressive acts I provided above. Doesn’t look like that’s Russia does it? „Putin was boss of the KGB! Of course he’s an evil asshole!!!“ He was KGB officer from 1975 to 1982. After Glasnost became a thing under Gorbachev he had a nice number of other functions, being a bona fide mayor for example. He only returned to intelligence work, kind of, as boss of Russia’s internal intelligence (the FSB) from July 1998 to August 1999. For those who don’t want to bother looking it up, that was under Yeltsin, with whom the West was always a-ok. Funny how no one ever even mentions all the other points Putin has been at during his career. That is, funny unless you look at propaganda values. „Putin’s a threat!!!“ To whom? Ever looked at Russia’s current military spending? Or do you remember the far-beyond-desolate state the Russian army found itself in after the collapse of the Soviet regime? Did you know that Putin recently announced that Russia would decrease military spending soon? Putin’s Russia is only a military threat to those who can’t call upon NATO or other powerful allies. And that assumes that he’s planning an aggression. If Trump gets his wish and all NATO members increase their military spending, Germany alone will invest as much into new war toys per year as all of Russia. Now add to that the other NATO members, and the US with their obscene military budget. Who’s the threat here? By the way, after the collapse of the Soviets, a certain US official had assured Gorbachev that NATO would, literally, advance „not a single inch“ eastwards. Now look at the map and wonder how trustworthy NATO looks to the average Russian. Just sayin‘. Yeah sure, Russia still has nukes. And if you assume that Putin is a card-carrying moron that’s certainly an option to him. Only a moron would launche those missiles knowing that his own country would end only minutes later too. Russia may well be a threat to certain individuals, see the Skripal case if the evidence is good (I have objected to UK’s May blaming Putin because I’ve yet to hear any strong evidence besides her „I said so!“). In such cases, of course that criminal act has to be dealt with. We have to do it right though, the proper way. Unless we no longer want to claim that we’re the Good Ones™. By the way, don't point at secret services as source of "evidence". Remember those WMDs in Iraq, which were supposedly such a threat even though no one ever found a trace of them? Or Tonkin? Northwoods? GLADIO? All that came from secret services and the like. Guess how much I trust them. And while we’re at it, yes those who spit on democracy and human right should be dealt with. However, looking at how the Western nations have acted in recent times, they definitely have no right to act as judge. You know who should hold court over that? The United fucking Nations. That’s what we have them for. But strangely, no one, not even the most „but we’re the good virtuous ones!!!“ Western nations, considers them much. Wonder why… (EDIT: Aaaaand I'll just leave this link here. "The best the MSM have come up with is that a St. Petersburg outfit called Internet Research Agency (IRA) placed $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to the $81 million Facebook ad spending by the Trump and Clinton campaigns), some of the Russian ads actually directed against Trump. As Jeffrey St. Clair pointed out in the pages of CounterPunch, in the key states where Clinton lost the election, the traditional Democrat strongholds of Michigan ($832 spent on token IRA buy ads), Pennsylvania ($300), and Wisconsin ($1,979), all but $54 of this amount was spent before the party primaries even started. Facebook’s vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the total Russian ad buys occurred after the presidential election." " Even if there were genuine evidence that Russian officials had hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta emails, as originally claimed by the intelligence agencies, one should put this in context of the long history of the CIA’s efforts to overthrow many democratically elected leaders who had the temerity to stand up to the superpower. These would include Allende, Arbenz, Mossadeq, Lumumba, Chavez, Goulart, Ortega, and others. The list of US interventions in foreign elections just since 1948 (Italy) is voluminous. ")
  4. Thurisaz

    School Shooting in Alabama

    <Satire> "Breaking news: NRA demands schools be banned" (That was actually a rather recent headline on German satire website "Der Postillon" which keeps getting mistaken for a "serious" news website by the plagiarizing journaille... )
  5. Thurisaz

    BAA

    Preach that (ha ha) brother!
  6. Thurisaz

    Thoughts on Jack Chick?

    The words you were looking for are "magic spell" Yeah one more of the many reasons why one could easily assume Chicken is really an atheist on a deep cover mission to destroy the cult from within. If so, however, someone seriously underestimated the idiocy and doublethink of the cultists.
  7. Possible. Or the shooter might have gone nuts perceiving that the hunters have arrived much earlier than planned, and tried to get an even larger body count. We'll never know indeed.
  8. Thurisaz

    1984 Describes Christianity

    Not directly related to the jebus cult but while we're at the topic of 1984... ...yes do read it, it's a damn good book (in a frightening way but still). Let me recommend two things though: First, as I see it, the most brilliant part is not the main plot but what the protagonists read in the Forbidden Book(TM) of the novel's totalitarian regime. It's an analysis of how the sick system of the novel's world works. Also (though if you're reading it from a specifically anti-christian perspective the risk isn't that big), people often assume that the book is a damning critic of surveillance technology; while that does play an important part in the book, what Orwell really aimed at was the manipulation of thought processes by limiting the vocabulary the sheeple know (I guess that will sound familiar to you, depending on the specific brand of jebus cult you're thinking of...). That is not detailed much in the novel itself but explained very precisely in the appendices, so do read those too
  9. Thurisaz

    1984 Describes Christianity

    Orwell wanted to point at totalitarian regimes in general, but yes, much of it fits the jebus taliban quite well, because that is a totalitarian system. I'd think though that on the Newspeak front, morontheists still have things to learn from history's greatest fuckfaces. Oh they do have some Newspeak but methinks they could do better. Though I hope they never will.
  10. That may be part of it too, now that it's been mentioned. When I was an active volunteer in the German St. John's ambulance, one of the most basic things hammered into our heads was that "We don't want no fucking heroes. The law doesn't want to fucking heroes. You'll help exactly no one if you're lying in your own blood next to the patient." We made it a ritual to watch those typical "our heroes in the EMT/police/fire department" TV shows before our weekly meeting at the HQ and mock all the idiocy. "First of all, protect yourself. Do not run into danger. If you do, you're dead - if the danger doesn't kill you our boss will." That was about what was taught to us every moment. Now admittedly one can expect that an armed guard takes some more risk but really... can you fairly expect from anyone that they boldly, knowingly risk their own life for anything? They wanna live just as much as we do. It's easy to blame someone for not putting their lives on the line if it's their life and not ours...
  11. Thurisaz

    Thoughts on Jack Chick?

    Chicken tracts. Oh boy. Chicken tracts. They're almost totally unknown here in the Vaterland. Fortunately. I've looked at some online and they seem like an idiocy test to me. If you don't want to burn them all after reading halfway through one, you're a braindead moron. Even other christians should feel ashamed at how unbefuckinglievably dumb they are. That people are really, actually, trying to use them to find new victims converts speaks volumes about the US brand of christianity.
  12. How "convenient". Yup if the public should demand Consequences(TM) after the killings, guess who'll get the blame so that the higher-ups can continue to do their thing? But yes it also illustrates that just because Someone With A Gun(TM) is there doesn't have to mean jack shit. What kind of gun did the dude have (some kind of pistol I assume, or at best maybe a shotgun)? Would he have been able to hold his ground against a madman without any fear for his life, armed with a semi-auto rifle? Let's tell it like it is: More weapons, whether for such guards, for teachers, or whatever... can at best somewhat limit the body count. And that's if they are both competent and shoot and hit first. And several other "if"'s probably that I'm not thinking of right now. Arguably better than nothing but everyone ask yourself now: If The Man(TM) tells you "we've done Things(TM) to limit the body count in future shootings", do you feel that that's even just nearly enough? The core question, as I see it, is still "Why the ever-loving fuck do people snap so regularly and what can we do to prevent their snapping?". Everything else is just an attempt at damage control... mitigating the symptoms while accepting the cause.
  13. Thurisaz

    Ex-Christian Chat Room on Discord

    I just maaaaay be there too... no guarantees as that's during dead man's wake as we call it (around 3am) but who knows. If I can't make it tonight I hope to catch you some other time
  14. Thurisaz

    #metoo

    Good points in your entire posting, this up there is the only one I feel I should add anything You refer to women "in the world". If we want to be fair, we need to be aware here that not all countries and places are treating women equally well (or bad, depending on how you approach it). Take certain Arab nations for example where it happens that a woman reports having been raped and then... gets punished for sex out of wedlock. Holy fucking shit. Now that's a place that needs immediate action on all levels! And I think with this I'll retreat from this thread. I'm sufficiently pissed by a FB thread where I'm getting called a callous evil misogynist without any empathy for pointing out that in dubio pro reo is a unversal foundation of any proper court system, and that there's a good reason for it, therefore exceptions are unacceptable... regardless of gender/age/religion/skin color/whathaveyou involved on either side.
  15. Thurisaz

    #metoo

    Certainly true. But are men any less hesitant to report violations? Consider... at least the concept of the female victim of sexual aggression (I use that term as including both harrassment and rape, just to make a point that I think the latter terms are used very inflationary these days ) is one firmly planted into the common mind. I admit I have no hard numbers, no one seems eager to do any serious study on the other side's perspective (gee why could that be?)... but let's be honest to ourselves here, when a man says "I got harrassed (or even raped) by a woman!", don't we all wonder, at least for a moment, whether the alleged victim must've really enjoyed it, or that he should've defended himself and not have been such a sissy, or that he's lying and really was the offender himself? If this shit happens to a man (whether it's a rare or common thing, let's ignore that question for the moment)... would our societies be willing to believe his claims or ridicule him (any more or less than with reversed genders)? There's shit happening on both sides, to both genders. The problem is that male-on-female sexual aggression is in the public's spotlight almost immediately, while the opposite...